A property owner whose driveway was sealed off for more than six weeks due to storm-induced landslides will have his claim paid and be compensated for poor claims handling, after his insurer initially sent a carpenter, not an engineer, to assess the damage.

The complainant lodged a claim on February 25 last year after the area around his property was hit by a severe storm, recording more than 700mm of rainfall in the days before and after the claimed incident.

The claimant says the storm caused landslides, which impacted his driveway and prevented him from accessing his home due to a blockage of debris. The man says he was forced to live with a family member for six weeks before he and a group of friends completed makeshift works to make the driveway accessible, with the insurer’s approval.

Suncorp accepted that a storm hit the area but disputed that a one-off event caused the losses.

The insurer initially engaged a carpenter, referred to as JLG, who reported that there had been no resultant building damage from the landslides and recommended a claim denial.

An insurer-appointed engineer, referred to as ECE, later reported that erosion under the driveway had been caused by an “absence of sufficient drainage”. The insurer says ECE’s findings concluded that the cause of the damage had been a “structural fault”, which was not covered by the complainant’s insured events policy.

Suncorp also said its policy did not respond to the loss of soil and only covered damage to the driveway if the storm had damaged it.

The complainant questioned JLG’s capability to assess the damage, saying he did not have the expertise to evaluate the losses as he was not an engineer.

The policyholder says ECE’s findings had been wrong and “inherently inconsistent”, noting that the report said there had been “no drainage alongside the driveway” despite later identifying drainage. He also engaged an engineer to rebut the insurer’s expert.

The complainant provided video footage of the driveway’s gulley “operating effectively” before the claimed event and says it was only prevented from working because the storm had overwhelmed it. He notes that other roads in the area suffered similar problems due to the landslip.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) acknowledged that JLG was an “unsuitable contractor with irrelevant expertise” and dismissed his findings.

"I accept the complainant's position that the carpenter, JLG, did not have the appropriate expertise to provide an opinion on the property damage and risk of the driveway failing as he was a carpenter rather than an engineer," AFCA's ombudsman said.

"By engaging an inappropriate expert and then waiting over 3 months for the report with minimal follow up, the overall claims handling process was unnecessarily drawn out. The insurer failed to follow good industry practice including clauses 74 and 75 of the Code."

AFCA agreed that ECE’s conclusions had been limited and failed to consider the likely impact of the storm on the drainage system’s failures.

“In excluding the claim, the insurer relied heavily on the engineer’s findings of inadequate site drainage to establish a pre-existing design and structural fault on the driveway,” AFCA said.

“However, this assessment of drainage was not made with reference to any relevant standards which existed 25 years ago when the road was constructed.

“The expert engineering reports also did not consider whether the significant amount of rain which fell during the storm event (700mm in five days) would have overwhelmed any drainage system, even one of better quality.”

The ruling required Suncorp to engage with qualified tradespeople to prepare quotes to repair the driveway and cash settle the claim based on the higher of the two quotes, as well as a 20% contingency for the transfer of risk.

AFCA also required Suncorp to reimburse the homeowner for the makesafe work he and friends completed, as well as professional costs for expert reports. The insurer acknowledged that the claimant had raised the accessibility issue with it multiple times, and it failed to respond.

The ruling awarded the insured $2000 for non-financial losses in relation to various issues with Suncorp’s handling, including delays, factual errors in expert reports and incorrect assurances from its representatives that the claim would be accepted.

The insurer says its handling had been delayed due to an abundance of claims from NSW and Queensland floods, but AFCA accepted that this “only partially” accounted for the delays.

“The information shows there were communications issues throughout the claim, which included issues with the trades the insurer appointed,” AFCA said.

“The claim notes show the complainant contacted the insurer for updates on multiple occasions and reported being upset due to delays on the claim and lack of contact from the insurer.

“The insurer acknowledges these delays and service issues associated with the complainant’s claims and provided the complainant with an apology.”

Click here for the ruling.